Yes but it’s worth pointing out that peer review is also a form of consensus-building. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s pretty workable if everyone’s pulling in the same direction.
Peer review is a sanity check, but many incorrect theories disproven later passed peer review. I only point out science as a the one group of people who should be above appeals to authority or consensus but they are still very influenced by it.
Kinda my point. Even the scientific process is imperfect. It’s definitely workable, but all our theories are less “really real” and more a highly refined consensus that is only valid while we lack a better one. All firm beliefs require a leap of faith, however small.
The scientific method states quite clearly that you can never prove anything, only disprove.
Failure to disprove warrants publication to try to get other people to disprove.
But it’s still rarely properly applied, especially when you get further away from theoretical research.
Yes but it’s worth pointing out that peer review is also a form of consensus-building. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s pretty workable if everyone’s pulling in the same direction.
Peer review is a sanity check, but many incorrect theories disproven later passed peer review. I only point out science as a the one group of people who should be above appeals to authority or consensus but they are still very influenced by it.
Kinda my point. Even the scientific process is imperfect. It’s definitely workable, but all our theories are less “really real” and more a highly refined consensus that is only valid while we lack a better one. All firm beliefs require a leap of faith, however small.
The scientific method states quite clearly that you can never prove anything, only disprove. Failure to disprove warrants publication to try to get other people to disprove. But it’s still rarely properly applied, especially when you get further away from theoretical research.